Re: Many groups... That is really good news Carol and I agree there is no reason to stop something based on an overly optimistic timeline. I think that we still need the outcomes of standards, but the processes do need to evolve out of the dark ages.

Time is always money, end users expect revolution not evolution, and telecom has to move forward expeditiously. Having said that, we still need to communicate worldwide so standards are still required. Maybe this group will be THE one to set the tone and speed for future groups.

Re: Many groups... If you look at this group's recent Malaga event, which Ray references, it was packed and they had to turn people away. There is now widespread recognition of NFV as a transformational technology and I'm saying that with a straight face.

I don't think the standards process for this stuff will ever look like a typical standards process but cutting the development process off after two years doesn't seem like a logical thing to do.

Re: Many groups... Well said, @DOShea. Consensus and implementation both take time, add to that testing and verification and it becomes obvious why 2 years is too short. I think that since the members are passionate about making this happen, they will find a way to both extend the time and avoid the bloat.

Many groups... If they're further ahead of teh game than some other industry groups, they should keep going, but aren't there a lot of groups staking out the same ground here? Seems like someone shoudl drop back or feed their work into the ETSI effort.

Nice article. I don't think anyone wanted the NFV ISG to become another bloated standards body - especially as they are a specifications group! But the fact is that in order to achieve one of their primary stated goals of liaising with appropriate standards bodies, they need more than 2 years, if only because they are beholden to the speed that those organizations can and do work at. Consider the IETF liaisons: SFC went from BoF to WG status in near record time, achieving accolades from area chairs for the amount of contributions in a short period of time. They are having their first WG meeting next week at IETF89 / London.

The second BoF (Virtualized Network Function Pools) are only now gathering for the first time at that same meeting. Both have a high degree of carrier participation - which is rare in the IETF, these days, as they feel it's not been commercial enough, for some time.

Anyway, this stuff just takes time. Now, if we are still having this conversation in 10 years, that's a different problem. Or maybe its just the same age-old problem!